Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I wonder if it would be cleaner to include the launcher in > >> the autovacuum_max_workers parameter, and increase the min/default > >> values of that by one. > > > Huh, yeah, sorry about that -- fixed here. I think the name of the > > param, which includes "worker", precludes from raising the values. > > Well, I'm not sure the average user knows or cares about the difference > between the launcher and the workers. The thing that was in the back of > my mind was that we would now have the option to have the launcher show > up in pg_stat_activity. If we were to do that then the case for > counting it in the user-visible number-of-processes parameter would get > a lot stronger (enough to justify renaming the parameter, if you insist > that the launcher isn't a worker). I don't however have any strong > opinion on whether we *should* include it in pg_stat_activity --- > comments?
The user may not care about the difference, but there's a point in having the limit be the simpler concept of "this is the maximum amount of processes running vacuum at any time". The launcher is very uninteresting to users. > In the meantime, this looks reasonably sane in a fast read-through, > but I saw a few comments that could use improvement, and I have not > tried to actually review it (like look for missed places to change). > Do you mind if I work it over for an hour or two? Please go ahead. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
